3 ms·

The US could do with a few Royal Commissions...

by OzzyB 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago
I'll say it damn well could. The idea of a Royal Commission is one of the ideas I'd really like to import from Australia to the US. Actually the idea of a Royal Commission is just part of a smaller idea missing from US governance: the idea that an organ of the government can be completely non-partisan. Royal Commissions are instigated by politicians, but they're expected to exist far above the fray of ordinary politics; certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. Other examples of entities which manage in Australia to escape the partisanship which dominates them in the US are the High (Supreme) Court and the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. For this American, that sounds like not being allowed to talk about their bias. I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level. Yes, that's kindof what I was trying to say. And I think to some extent it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course people are only human and have their biases, but if you create a social expectation that they'll be unbiased (and combine this with choosing the best people for the job -- old judges with nothing in particular to gain or lose and a well-earned reputation for impartiality) then they will be as unbiased as humanly possible. The "Royal" in the title is no accident, though -- the traditions of the Commonwealth countries dictate that the Crown is above all politics, so anything expected to be above politics is always given a direct symbolic link to the monarchy. In the US there is no such thing and the highest power in the land is just another damn politician. One might, perhaps going only a little too far, wonder whether the American political need to constantly invoke God comes from not having a Queen instead.
- jacques_chester 16y ago
  > Actually the idea of a Royal Commission is just part of a smaller idea missing from US governance: the idea that an organ of the government can be completely non-partisan. Yes, but they are rarely used, for two reasons. 1. They resemble the Star Chamber in their powers and setup. The Common Law has an unflattering cultural memory of this time in its history. 2. Their independence makes them dangerous to the commissioning government. For political reasons various watered-down sorts of inquiry are preferred instead. > Royal Commissions are instigated by politicians, but they're expected to exist far above the fray of ordinary politics; certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. The Costigan Commission has been accused of bias, or at least going outside its terms of reference. > Other examples of entities which manage in Australia to escape the partisanship which dominates them in the US are the High (Supreme) Court and the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts. I'm not sure why the HCA has avoided such a divisive culture as in the US. Probably because our jurisprudence has evolved in a quite different direction from the USA's in terms of constitutional interpretation. Simplifying grossly, the US model is "realist", taking the view that all judges are biased and that policy consideration affects judicial decisions; the Australian model is more "legalist", in that every attempt is made to ignore the policy implications and attend only to the law. Of course in both countries the debate is far more complex and nuanced than that; but in Australia our judges have developed a theory of interpretation that blends legalism[1] and a general rejection of originalism/purposefulness[2]. This latter strand has caused the original design of the federation to be steadily turned inside out. As for electoral boundaries, yes, having independent electoral commissions is a huge boon to our country and something that should be more widely replicated. In terms of electoral systems Australia is a world leader in many areas. [1] Justice Sir Owen Dixon championed this view and shaped the post-50s court. He said upon becoming Chief Justice: "Close adherence to legal reasoning is the only way to maintain the confidence of all parties in federal conflicts. It may be that the Court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else. There is no other safe guide to judicial decisions in great conflicts than a strict and complete legalism". His thinking in this case was shaped by the previous appointment of politicians to the High Court. [2] Justice Isaacs introduced this mode of reasoning in the famous Engineers case.
  - deleted 16y ago

The US could do with a few Royal Commissions...

by OzzyB 16y ago

The US could do with a few Royal Commissions...

hugh3 16y ago

I'll say it damn well could. The idea of a Royal Commission is one of the ideas I'd really like to import from Australia to the US. Actually the idea of a Royal Commission is just part of a smaller idea missing from US governance: the idea that an organ of the government can be completely non-partisan. Royal Commissions are instigated by politicians, but they're expected to exist far above the fray of ordinary politics; certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. Other examples of entities which manage in Australia to escape the partisanship which dominates them in the US are the High (Supreme) Court and the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts.

randallsquared 16y ago
certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. For this American, that sounds like not being allowed to talk about their bias. I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level. Yes, that's kindof what I was trying to say. And I think to some extent it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course people are only human and have their biases, but if you create a social expectation that they'll be unbiased (and combine this with choosing the best people for the job -- old judges with nothing in particular to gain or lose and a well-earned reputation for impartiality) then they will be as unbiased as humanly possible. The "Royal" in the title is no accident, though -- the traditions of the Commonwealth countries dictate that the Crown is above all politics, so anything expected to be above politics is always given a direct symbolic link to the monarchy. In the US there is no such thing and the highest power in the land is just another damn politician. One might, perhaps going only a little too far, wonder whether the American political need to constantly invoke God comes from not having a Queen instead.
jacques_chester 16y ago
> Actually the idea of a Royal Commission is just part of a smaller idea missing from US governance: the idea that an organ of the government can be completely non-partisan. Yes, but they are rarely used, for two reasons. 1. They resemble the Star Chamber in their powers and setup. The Common Law has an unflattering cultural memory of this time in its history. 2. Their independence makes them dangerous to the commissioning government. For political reasons various watered-down sorts of inquiry are preferred instead. > Royal Commissions are instigated by politicians, but they're expected to exist far above the fray of ordinary politics; certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. The Costigan Commission has been accused of bias, or at least going outside its terms of reference. > Other examples of entities which manage in Australia to escape the partisanship which dominates them in the US are the High (Supreme) Court and the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts. I'm not sure why the HCA has avoided such a divisive culture as in the US. Probably because our jurisprudence has evolved in a quite different direction from the USA's in terms of constitutional interpretation. Simplifying grossly, the US model is "realist", taking the view that all judges are biased and that policy consideration affects judicial decisions; the Australian model is more "legalist", in that every attempt is made to ignore the policy implications and attend only to the law. Of course in both countries the debate is far more complex and nuanced than that; but in Australia our judges have developed a theory of interpretation that blends legalism[1] and a general rejection of originalism/purposefulness[2]. This latter strand has caused the original design of the federation to be steadily turned inside out. As for electoral boundaries, yes, having independent electoral commissions is a huge boon to our country and something that should be more widely replicated. In terms of electoral systems Australia is a world leader in many areas. [1] Justice Sir Owen Dixon championed this view and shaped the post-50s court. He said upon becoming Chief Justice: "Close adherence to legal reasoning is the only way to maintain the confidence of all parties in federal conflicts. It may be that the Court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else. There is no other safe guide to judicial decisions in great conflicts than a strict and complete legalism". His thinking in this case was shaped by the previous appointment of politicians to the High Court. [2] Justice Isaacs introduced this mode of reasoning in the famous Engineers case.
- deleted 16y ago